I mostly cover prosecutorial, judicial, and police misconduct and the demise of the Rule of Law in the USA, with an occasional musical interlude.
Let justice roll down like waters,
and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. Amos 5:24 (ESV)

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

"My Momma Told Me": From Meanness to Molestation. The CAC and Interview Manipulation, Part I

(This is the fourth in a series on the testimony of the child accusers)

In the opening statements of Tonya Craft’s trial, the prosecutors implored the jury to “believe the children” who would tell them of alleged incidents when Ms. Craft allegedly molested them. Certainly the most formidable of these three children was the daughter of Sandra Lamb, the most outspoken of the parents.

First, and most important, Accuser #1 was an experienced child actress, having acted the part of an abused child in at least one movie, and having her own on-line resume (which “judge” Brian House and the prosecutors, Chris Arnt and Len Gregor, successfully kept from the evidence file). This was someone who could memorize her lines and speak them well.

Second, jurors would be inclined to be sympathetic to a young child giving an account of abuse, and this girl was capable of giving the kind of testimony that jurors would be likely to believe. As Dennis Norwood noted in his account, the girl (unlike the other two child accusers) did give a clear and compelling testimony.

Alas, she also gave us the “hand rape” story, which set off an entire chain of perjury, all of it enabled by House and his tag team of prosecutors. However, before the “hand rape,” and before the alleged baths and all of the other tales the young actress recited, there was, well, nothing at all. In this post, I intend to demonstrate just how the original stories of “a girl was mean to me” ultimately escalated into wilder and wilder tales, until the wildest – and most unbelievable one – came on the stand.

In this post, I include the original May 27, 2008, interview by Stacey Long of the Children’s Advocacy Center. You can see how the child is referring to another child, but Long clearly is trying to steer the accusations against Tonya, even when it is obvious that the child is not claiming anything at all about Ms. Craft. I will have further comments in the body of the interview, and then more comments at the end:

ACCUSER #1: A girl was mean to me.
STACY: When was she mean to you?[This is important, for she is speaking about Tonya Craft’s daughter, not Tonya. This reference stays consistent throughout this particular interview.]
ACCUSER #1: When? At her house.
STACY: At her house?
ACCUSER #1: Uh huh.
STACY: Was it always at her house that she was mean?
ACCUSER #1: (moves head up and down).
STACEY: Okay. And you said this -- that she was mean to you at her house. Was she mean to you just one time or more than once?
ACCUSER #1: Once.
STACEY: One time only?
ACCUSER #1: Maybe - maybe twice.
ACCUSER #1: And at the school.
STACEY: She was mean to you at school?
ACCUSER #1: A little bit.
STACEY: How many times at school?
ACCUSER #1: Once.
STACEY: Just once. And when you say school, you're talking about Chickamauga Elementary, right?
ACCUSER #1: Yeah. I was in kindergarten.
STACEY: When you were at school, where at in the school did it [Tonya being mean] happen?
ACCUSER #1: In the hall.
STACEY: Okay. At Tonya’s house what – where would it happen?
ACCUSER #1: Close to the kitchen.
STACEY: Both times?
ACCUSER #1: (Indiscernible)
STACEY: Did anyone see it happen?
ACCUSER #1: (moves head side to side)
STACEY: At school or at Tonya’s house?
ACCUSER #1: (moves head side to side)
STACEY: Okay. What was she doing that was mean?
ACCUSER #1: She always took me out in the hall at school and told me not to do anything when I didn't do nothing.
ACCUSER #1: And at her house, she -- when we were out one day, she got me Taco Bell and—
STACEY: She did what, now?
ACCUSER #1: Got me Taco Bell –
STACEY: Uh-huh.
ACCUSER #1: -- to be really nice. And she -- she -- we were in the kitchen one day, and she started kissing me on my head and my neck and my shoulder.
ACCUSER #1: And she would never give me any food, and I was hungry.
STACEY: Okay. So one day in the kitchen-
ACCUSER #1: Uh-huh.
STACEY: -- she started kissing you on your head?
ACCUSER #1: Uh-huh. (Moves head up and down.)
STACEY: And what?
ACCUSER #1: And my neck and my shoulder.
STACEY: Okay. And that was Tonya that was kissing you?
ACCUSER #1: Uh-huh. (Moves head up and down.)
STACEY: What was the kiss like?
ACCUSER #1: It just had -- like, it was her lips.
STACEY: Okay, did she say anything when that happened?
ACCUSER #1 She said it was all right for her to do it.
STACEY: Okay. Did she say anything else other than it was okay for her to do it?
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh (moves head from side to side)
STACEY: Okay. Did anything else happen?
ACCUSER #1: (Moves head side to side)
STACEY: Was she mean to you in other ways?
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh (moves head from side to side)
ACCUSER #1: Her daughter always wanted to play boyfriend and girlfriend. I didn’t want to. But she said she would tell on me.
STACEY: So what does that mean? How do you play boyfriend and girlfriend?
ACCUSER #1: She wanted to, like, kiss on the cheek and all that.
ACCUSER #1: She [Accuser #3] stuck her hand down my pants, and she told me to do it back to her.
STACEY: Okay. What happened when she [Accuser #3] stuck her hand down your pants?
ACCUSER #1: She rubbed me.
STACEY: Where at?
ACCUSER #1: On my private.
STACEY: Okay. Okay. Sometimes there's different private parts. Which private part did she [Accuser #3] rub, Accuser #1?
ACCUSER #1: Front.
STACEY: Was her [Accuser #3’s] hand on top of your panties or the inside of your panties?
ACCUSER #1: On top.
STACEY: Okay. So when she touched and rubbed on your private, was she rubbing the panties covering your private or the skin on your private?
ACCUSER #1: The panties.
STACEY: Okay. Would she say anything when that happened?
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh. (Moves head from side to side.)
STACEY: Okay. So she said that -- for you to do the same thing, that she would tell if you do -- didn't play?
ACCUSER #1: Uh-huh.
STACEY: Okay. And what did she want you to do when you put your hand down her pants?
ACCUSER #1: Touch her panties.
STACEY:… Did your hand ever touch the skin on her private? [Note: this is the 4th time in a row she asks a similar question]
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh (moves head from side to side)
STACEY: Where did Accuser #3 learn that?
ACCUSER #1: I don't know. She must have learned it from her mom.
STACEY: Okay. Did Tonya ever do anything like that to you?
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh. (Moves head from side to side.)[So, Long asks a leading question, trying to manipulate the conversation to get Tonya as the perpetrator. Notice that Accuser #1 denies that Tonya molested her]
STACEY: And you said that sometimes she wouldn't give you food. Tell me -- tell me what you mean by that.
ACCUSER #1: She would -- like, when I was hungry, I’d ask her, and she wouldn’t give me anything like breakfast, lunch, or dinner.
ACCUSER #1: She would say – like, if I asked her if I could eat, she would say no. And I asked her why. She goes, just because.
STACEY: You don't know how somebody found out for the very first time about all this?
ACCUSER #1: Uh-huh.
STACEY: Who -- who was the one that did find out?
ACCUSER #1: My momma.
ACCUSER #1: She -- Accuser #3, she stuck her finger in her private and made me smell it. And I didn't know what it was.
STACEY: Where did that happen?
ACCUSER #1: In the car.
STACEY: Whose car?
ACCUSER #1: Tonya.
STACEY: Did Tonya know that was happening?
ACCUSER #1: (moves head from side to side)
ACCUSER #1: Tonya told her husband, David, that if he -- if he told something that it would be the end of their relationship.
STACEY: If he told what?
ACCUSER #1: Told something.
STACEY: You don't know what? How do you know she told him that?
ACCUSER #1: Because we were in the car driving to a birthday, the swimming birthday -
STACEY: Okay. All right. Did you tell Mom anything different than what you've told me other than Accuser #3 sticking her finger in her private?
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh. (Moves head from side to side.)
STACEY: Was there anything about Miss Tonya? Did she ever give you touches?
ACCUSER #1: (Moves head from side to side)
STACEY: No? Did you tell Mom that she had?
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh.
STACEY: No? Okay.[Again, we see Long attempting to implicate Tonya through leading questions. Her “No?” strikes me as a response that indicated that the “correct” answer would have been “Yes.” You can see how the child begins to change her story in response to that leading "No" from Long. The change in testimony begins immediately.]
ACCUSER #1: Well, she did pat me right here (indicating).
STACEY: Where at?
ACCUSER #1: Right here (indicating).
STACEY: Okay. What do you -- what do you call that part right there?
ACCUSER #1: Private.[So, we can see that the child is learning how to give Long the answers that Long wants]
STACEY: Okay. Did she say anything when she did that?
ACCUSER #1: She told her it -- she told me it was all right.
STACEY: Okay. Can I hold your doll for just a second and you show me again where she patted?
ACCUSER #1: (Indicating.)
STACEY: Okay. Oops. Was that on top of your clothes or under your clothes or what?
ACCUSER #1: On top.
STACEY: Okay. Did Miss Tonya ever say things to you that scared you or that you worried about?
ACCUSER #1: (Moves head from side to side.)
STACEY: No?
ACCUSER #1: But she would always turn this music on in her car that I didn’t like.
STACEY: Okay. What kind of music?
ACCUSER #1: Rap.
STACEY: Okay. How come you didn’t like it?
ACCUSER #1: Because it had these bad words in it. She always turned it up loud.
STACEY: Do you know if things happened between Accuser #3 and anyone else?
ACCUSER #1: Her name’s Accuser #2.
ACCUSER #1: And there’s another girl, Another Child.
STACEY: Okay. Were you ever afraid of Tonya?
ACCUSER #1: Uh-huh. (Moves head up and down.)
STACEY: What were you afraid of?
ACCUSER #1: That she would always be mean to me again I came over to her house.
STACEY: Okay. Can you tell me when that stuff happened with Tonya?
ACCUSER #1: I was in kindergarten. And one day Accuser #3 had a birthday, and it was a sleepover. And I didn't want to spend the night, so I went home with a friend. She told me that if I had a sleepover party -- but I wouldn't have one -- she would -- that if one of the girls went home with my sleepover, would you would you care or not. And I told her I wouldn't care. And she told me it's real mean to leave a girl's party.
ACCUSER #1: And we – and – and the boys were always jumping. And they jumped on me [at Accuser #3’s birthday party], and Tonya wouldn’t care.
STACEY: Okay. Okay. What about -- did she ever talk about your mom or saying things to you?
ACCUSER #1: She told me not to tell my mom if she done something.
STACEY: Okay. Did she ever talk about your mom, though, like say things about her?
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh. (Moves head from side to side.)
STACEY: Okay. Did Tonya ever tell you that she liked you or --
ACCUSER #1: She told me she loved me.
STACEY: Okay. Did she ever say anything about your mommy loving you?
ACCUSER #1: (Moves head from side to side.) Huh-uh.
STACEY: Okay. Is there anything else about Tonya and Accuser #3 that happened that you need to tell me about or that we need to talk about?
ACCUSER #1: (Moves head from side to side.)
STACEY: Did she ever want you to touch her in any way?
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh. (Moves head from side to side.}
STACEY: Okay. Did she ever show you any of her private parts?
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh. (Moves head from side to side.)
STACEY: Okay. Have you told me everything that happened?
ACCUSER #1: Uh-huh. (Moves head up and down.)
STACEY: Okay. You're not leaving anything out because it's hard to talk about or –
ACCUSER #1: (Moves from side to side.) No.
STACEY: Okay. Do you think about this stuff much?
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh. (Moves head from side to side.)
STACEY: Does it ever bother you?
ACCUSER #1: When I'm sleeping.
STACEY… Has everything you’ve told me been the truth?
ACCUSER #1: Uh-huh. (Moves head up and down).
STACEY: Anything any different than what you said?
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh. (Moves head from side to side.)
STACEY: Okay. All happened exactly like you said?
ACCUSER #1: Uh-huh.
ACCUSER #1: Accuser #3 would make her friend Accuser #2 put a bathing suit on --
STACEY: Okay.
ACCUSER #1: -- early in the morning one day when I spent the night. And I didn't know who it -- and I thought it was Accuser #3. So I said, Accuser #3, why do you have a bathing suit on? And Accuser #2 turned around.
STACEY: Okay. How come she wanted her to do that?
ACCUSER #1: I don't know. She didn't tell me that.
STACEY: Okay. Did you see anything happen between Accuser #3 and Accuser #2 or Another Child?
ACCUSER #1: (Moves head from side to side.)
STACEY: Okay. How do you know that things happened?
ACCUSER #1: My momma told me.[So, we see the manipulation at work from Sandra Lamb’s end]
STACEY: Did anything ever happen -- well, let me stop and ask it this way. Where would you be at Accuser #3's house when she -- she would touch you?
ACCUSER #1: Her room.
STACEY: Her room? Did it ever happen anywhere else?
ACCUSER #1: (Moves head from side to side.) In my house.
STACEY: Where at in your house?
ACCUSER #1: Playroom.
STACEY: Okay. How many times did you say things had happened with Accuser #3? I don't think we even talked about that.
ACCUSER #1: Twice.
STACEY: Once at her house and once at your house?
ACCUSER #1: (Moves head up and down.)
STACEY: No more?
ACCUSER #1: No more.
STACEY: Did Miss Tonya ever tell you and Accuser #3 to touch each other?
ACCUSER #1: No.[Again, we are seeing Long trying to manipulate the child into implicating Tonya Craft, and the child continues to deny it]

As I read through this transcript, it strikes me that Long was attempting to find a way to implicate Tonya Craft by manipulating the words of Lamb’s daughter. By so doing, she not only confuses the child, but she also sends signals that the girl is not giving “correct” answers. As we shall see in later posts, Long and then the ubiquitous Suzi Thorne ultimately were successful in getting the “disclosures” they wanted.

Note: In NONE of the interviews you will read do we find ANY indication of the "hand rape." That Sherri Wilson would claim on the stand -- under oath -- that Accuser #1 had told her on May 24 that Tonya had viciously assaulted the child does not square with any of these interviews. Remember, the interview in this post took place THREE DAYS after the alleged "disclosure" to which Wilson testified.

Had Tonya Craft done such a thing to Accuser #3, I doubt that the child would have left it out in three interviews, especially given the questions she was asked and the verbal and non-verbal cues that Long and Thorne were giving her. There is a reason that I call the LMJC and its attending agencies, Perjury Central.

reading this interview sickened me. i hope that stacey long is prosecuted and punished severely for her role of indoctrinating this child with false ideas.i pray that every person involved in the accusations, the "investigation" and the prosecution on tonya craft will soon be prosecuted and punished severely!!

This transcript saddens me, these children were completely victimized by their own parents, the investigators and the prosecutors, not by Tonya Craft. And it's far from over for Tonya Craft yet, her reputation will always be "suspect" to ignorant individuals, she still does not have her teachers licence that was taken away as soon as the charges were laid, and her own daughter was poisoned against her. How does Tonya Craft get justice? Maybe in 10 years from the civil courts, but her life can never be repaired. Thank goodness she was smart enough to get the proper representation in court to prove she was INNOCENT. What about the person who has been falsely accused and charged with known tainted evidence, but has a public defender who doesn't have the budget or ability to investigate and discover such things. Makes me shudder that things like this go on in this County. Shame on them!

This does not surprise me at, have seen Stacy Long's work before, have transcripts of interviews where she tried to manipulate my granddaughters. This woman is dangerous!!! Just how many false allegations of abuse is she responsible for??? Sadly, others are following in her footsteps! Who on earth trained these people and do they have no shame at all??? I already knew it, but this case never, ever should have gone beyond these bogus interviews!

I am a lawyer (civil) and this case has fascinated me. One question I get repeatedly asked is, "Why would a child make this up?" My answer, "because children can be manipulated" is an accurate answer, but not very convincing because I was unsure about "how" the manipulation occurs. The research materials and writings that are available online about this topic are stunning. Apparently, children are VERY easily coached, particularly by someone with an agenda, into claiming that something bad happened, when it didn't. In fact, they are so easily coached, it's amazing that the interviewers in the Craft case took so long in obtaining "disclosures." Clearly, it's a testament either to their raving incompetence or their "get Tonya" agenda IMO.

I had to read this article several times to gain some sense out of it. The questions seemed so opposite of what the child said and completely off topic. How do you go from claims of a mean child to an adult abusing someone? That's so far out of the real of possibility for a normal thinking person. But again, these aren't normal thinking people. The leaving a child alone thing obviously happened with all these girls. I guess those orchestrating this myth had to keep checking their notes to make sure they stayed with whatever script they came up with.

I do think the parents and "therapists/interviewers" are responsible for leading and coaching the children, but I do think children are capable of being vindictive and malicious. In this case, the girl herself held a grudge about being reprimanded by Tonya. Apparently she learned from her mom that she was beyond reproach, even by another adult. I also sense that there may have been some animosity between #1 and #3. At that age she may not have been able to discern the difference in seriousness and consequences between being mean and physical touching and was just randomly searching for something that would stick and get a rise out of the interviewer. With quite about of prompting they trained her which charges would get a reaction ...and a trip to the day spa!

Personally, I don't think kids are perfectly innocent of being vindictive and sneaky, they are just mostly impotent against adult authority and they do not properly understand consequences and repercussions of their actions. I have two young children, 4 and 6, and I am sometimes taken aback by the lies, blame, and sneakiness they can engage in - usually to mask some wrong doing on their own part. I know, I know, kids are innocent regardless, but I think they shouldn't be portrayed -not that they were in the post - as entirely without negative intent. I do think child #1 had a level of malicious intent and unfortunately fell victim to the perfect storm headed by her mom and the others involved.

this may be off topic, but why would parents put their kids through the ordeal of a trial and scar them for the rest of their lives? i know we live in a sick world, but really, three kids and their parents all conspired together...rather, three parents conspired together not thinking that this would impact their children forever...i'm speechless. so i'm stuck between whether i believe she is innocent and just was attacked by these families or she is guilty and these parents were acting like parents would if a child said something had been done to them.

i know, i know, you'll tell me to look at the evidence, the faulty interviews, etc...i have. i've plundered through this blog and kept abreast with this entire case.

i'm just in limbo about the whole thing. and then on LKL last night, i hear they (TC and her Dr. L) are meeting with Sony today to talk about a movie? to teach and educate so this doesn't happen again or to profit?

i suppose she needs to recoup money as well after her entire ordeal.

i'll saying, if i'm innocent, great. work on getting custody of my kids. stay out of the limelight. and don't tell me it's for a greater good. go ahead, get your law degree and work for the greater good as you said. it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth after following TC for the couple of years and now it seems like someone wants their "15 minutes"

These are a few random examples of Long showing what she knew before the interview, WHY there was to be an interview;

STACEY: Okay. All right. Did you tell Mom anything different than what you've told me other than Accuser #3 sticking her finger in her private?ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh. (Moves head from side to side.)STACEY: Was there anything about Miss Tonya? Did she ever give you touches?ACCUSER #1: (Moves head from side to side)STACEY: No? Did you tell Mom that she had?ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh.STACEY: No? Okay.

STACEY: Okay. Did Miss Tonya ever say things to you that scared you or that you worried about?

STACEY: Do you know if things happened between Accuser #3 and anyone else?

STACEY: Okay. Were you ever afraid of Tonya?

STACEY: Okay. Can you tell me when that stuff happened with Tonya?

STACEY: Okay. Okay. What about -- did she ever talk about your mom or saying things to you?

STACEY: Did Miss Tonya ever tell you and Accuser #3 to touch each other?

May 24, 2008:We know the claim is that Saundra was "SHOCKED" about the 'hand rape' that Accuser 1 allegedly could ONLY tell about in front of Sherry Wilson, so they made the special trip for that event Accuser 1 would not tell about alone with her mommy.

May 27, 2008:We see Long leading into areas she was evidently told about prior to the interview. Long is going to "Miss Tonya", "touches", "Accuser 3 and anyone else", "afraid of Tonya", "what about...", "touch each other", "talk about your mom", and lots of "tell mom ...mom ...mom",...

But, we do not see anything about "bath", "fingerS", Sherry Wilson or anything that even comes close to the topic of PENETRATION, other than the nearest similarity being Accuser 3 in the "smell" fingers episode. That "smell" episode would have led to more questions about similar activities had the "hand rape" tale been fabricated this early, but instead Long enquired about details of what Tonya had told her husband, David, and then immediately back to;

STACEY: Okay. All right. Did you tell Mom anything different than what you've told me other than Accuser #3 sticking her finger in her private?

More of the 'what did you tell your mom', and Long mentioning "different" indicates that Saundra had not told Long about the "smell" episode.

If the "hand rape" tale existed at this time, the questions would have been different and the interview would not have ended (I've seen nothing that indicates any of Accuser 1's interviews had to end because she was upset, actually she appeared to like the attention).

Anyway, there is a big problem for anyone hoping to show they knew of the "hand rape" prior to this first interview, unless they say they kept it a secret from Long for some unknown reason. I'm no expert on this 'interview' topic, but it should be a given that the one conducting the interview would know if they're trying to find out whether or not the child was deprived of food, neglected, physically assaulted, raped, molested or whatever, as it would take forever if they search for evidence of every crime possible.

You are entitled to your opinions, and I am to mine. I am a teacher myself, and if I were in Tonya's shoes, I'd do the same thing, meaning that I would take advantage of the TV appearances as much as possible for two reasons:

1. I'd want to recoup as much of what I'd have lost as possible, and even a law school costs a lot!

2. I'd want to appeal to more and more people that I really AM innocent.

As for putting kids through ordeal, normal parents won't do it, and it is only natural that you can't believe any parents would, but there are really sick parents out there, and I've seen them with my own eyes. In my opinion, Sandra Lamb had agendas with Tonya, but she is also the kind of person who wants her own fame. (The mere fact that she wanted her daughter to be an actress is a sign that she was living her dream through her daughter.) She used her daughter to get the attention she herself wanted by "acting" as a "mother that fights fiercely to PROTECT her own child". When I saw the clip of her attacking Mr. Echols, it confirmed my suspicion. I must also add that Sandra's daughter seemed only happy to participate in this. When she testified in court about the famous "hand rape", she must have thought she was acting the role of her life, and by doing so, she must have thought she would be pleasing the prosecution as well as her own mother.

I have been a victim of sex crimes (not one but two unrelated cases) myself, and it was extremely difficult to talk about them ad a child. I find it very unnatural that (as far as I can read from all the reports) Sandra's daughter showed no sign that it was difficult for her to talk about it.

Joal Henke is sick in his own ways. He is apparently not concerned about the well being of his own children. His main concern is to take the kids away from their mother to get back at her. In my opinion he is a control freak, and he likes to control pretty women like Tonya or Sarah, but when he realized that Tonya was too smart to be controlled by him, he must have gotten real mad to the point that he'd do anything to prove his "superiority".

As for the McDonalds, I must say they are pushovers, and they were threatened by Sandra, the Wilsons and the DA's office so bad that they didn't know how to get themselves out of it. The fact that Jerry McDonald is spineless to begin with didn't help.

All these unfortunate elements together with the object-driven interviewers and investigators made this case happen.

@11:19 - with the CAC types there is a victim and a perpetrator. Always. There is no consideration that someone is innocent. Therefore, the agenda becomes find the perp. rather than find the truth. A child saying "no" is just a child in denial. Add to that a motive (the Mondale Act money) to find as many victims as possible to get federal money. Then add the fact that Tonya made one of the parents mad for a school decision AND reported one of the parents for inappropriate activity and there is plenty of retaliatory motive. The parents motive combined with the CAC motive was what Tonya referred to as "a perfect storm." And as to the question of "why would a parent do that?" go to divorce court and watch what some parents fight over. Kids get put through hell every day.

Anonymous 11:19am, you really think she should put it all aside and go to law school? Wonder how is she going to pay for law school? She lost her house,job and all of her savings. How about you stepping up to bat for her and pay her way, now that would be the right thing to do !!!! I am sure you know how to contact her. The truth is in the interviews,whether you see it or not, it is THERE!!

I see nothing wrong with Tonya in the media, television, movie, book deals whatever it is. She has lost the opportunity to make a living in her chosen profession as a teacher through no fault of her own. She owes her parents their entire life's savings. She has continuing legal bills. Now law school will be a huge debt. She was not and is not looking for fame. She is looking to see that this never happens again to anyone and she must find a source of income to do this.

- "why would parents put their kids through the ordeal?Lamb - She has evidently acted with a vengeance directed at Tonya, rather obvious in the lies she has told and the efforts made to include others in the process, especially Wilson.

Joal - Convenience of opportunity, as it relates to custody. Revenge for accusation against wife for showering. Must go along, all the way, after getting involved.

McDonald - Appears to be led by Lamb, may even believe what is going on, fell victim to the process brought about and strengthened by the authorities involved and feels what she is doing is the right thing. Threats from Arnt to them for not cooperating.

- "three parents conspired together not thinking that this would impact their children forever"

The damage created for the children is what the authorities made them believe is the correct thing to do, those authorities are the professionals here and few in this country would be aware of just how those "experts" could harm their children in the way they make citizens believe the help is to be administered.

Those types of "experts" do the same thing daily all across the nation. The difference that determines whether or not the child is helped is if there actually was a crime and how well the "experts" do their job.

These parents were not the only ones the "experts" and Saundra Lamb tried to get involved, so some parents at least saw parts of the damage that could occur.

We know of many childcare cases that put innocent people in prison and it was not the intention of all the parents involved to see their children to suffer an "impact ....forever".

It's when the "experts" get involved that the "perfect storm" can materialize.

- "...meeting with Sony today to talk about a movie? to teach and educate so this doesn't happen again or to profit? ... "15 minutes""

First, "PROFIT" is not a crime or a bad thing, nor does recovering more than was spent make Tonya a bad person (if that even happens)!

The custody matter is handled by attorneys and Tonya has not shed duties one would expect of a mother seeking to regain custody of her children. My guess is that Joal has gone to earn money when he is not needed at hearings.

The process Tonya faced happens every day and I hope she gets as much attention for the topic as she possibly can, short of tossing her own children into the spotlights. She has done well in keeping the attention on the problems in the process and away from her children.

Tonya even pointed out on Larry King that the time with her children is NEVER about the trial or made public. She has shown the children, and her relationship with them, is not to be discussed with the public.

I agree, Cinderella. As for 11:19, keep in mind that one of the main perpetrators was Joal Henke, and he had good reason to get Tonya out of the picture.

As I do posts on Joal and Sarah Henke, you will see things coming together. Furthermore, we already know that the parents lied on the stand, as well as Sherri Wilson, so if they were willing to commit perjury, they were willing to put together a false story.

True stories of this type tend to be consistent, and as we go through the material, we can see that accusations and the like are all over the place. Furthermore, we have seen Sandra Lamb in action, and it is clear to me that she is capable of doing the things of which we are accusing her. Sherri and Dewayne Wilson already had promised to "get that bitch," so they had motivation, too.

This notion that the principals in this case would not have done what they did unless "something happened" is not necessary. When you see the tactics of the CAC and the prosecutorial tactics, you can see that truth really does not matter in the LMJC. All it takes is an accusation.

And, you think that people like Sandra Lamb are incapable of taking the life of another human being? (And, figuratively speaking, that is what they were trying to do.) Think again. From what I see, that woman and her friends are capable of doing a lot of evil, and demonstrated it by being willing to commit felonies -- and perjury is a felony -- to do so.

11:19, I ask that you consider respecting the jury's decision and allow Tonya to own not only her innocence but the right to make her own decisions without your judgment...has she not been judged enough? Endured enough...and been cleared of any wrong doing?

Tonya was drawn unwillingly into a frenetic media storm when these accusations arose. She had media camped at her door, shoved in her face and has been through 2 years of utter hell all in front of a "guilty until proven innocent" slanted media. If Tonya now chooses to use that same media storm to her advantage to recoup money, educate others, force legal changes to protect others or simply to scream her innocence to the world then I believe she has more than earned the right to do so. She had her accusers slandering her reputation for 2 long years...she has my blessing (not that she needs it) to go forth and say and do whatever the hell she likes in reply to them. As for her 15 minutes of fame...well, she endured a whole lot more than her 15 minutes worth of bad press so why is she not entitled to now stand in the light and declare her truth to the world if she so chooses.

What Kellie G said. That is the one thing that convinced me of TC's innocence. Her story remained consistent and she never deviated from it, nor did she fall for the prosecution's dirty tricks and act all huffy when testifying. The other side, on the other hand, demonstrated the reason for 22 not guilty votes. Their unbelievable testimony gave the jury enough reason to dismiss them as nothing more than spiteful individuals. But the disdain they showed the defense attorneys cemented the belief. When all is said and done, the Lamb/Henke/Wilson/McDonald group will have nothing left, not even their thinly disguised veneer of respectability. But Tonya can hold up her head and know, no matter what small minded people say, she always told the truth, and is now only worried about her kids - like any good mother.

My daughter was a beautiful child, and she literally memorized the books I read to her from cover to cover w/o missing a word. But I NEVER considered selling her off to Hollywood. That's because most child stars end up victims of suicide or drug abuse. I can clearly see the difference between chasing fame, at the expense of your child, and pursueing future justice for those falsely accused, who could also be falsely imprisoned, if Tonya takes NO action and remains quiet.

IT is Obvious Stacey Knows what she has to do. Now watch her go get the info for the prosecutor. That is what she does. It is sad that a person can do what she does and sleep at night. I know she has Children, what if someone did her the way she is doing Innocent people, How she does this is beyond me.Some people have no conscience, I want everyone to look at Angie's blog, she has some more of Stacey Long handy Work.

I know Tonya, & I can tell you she did not ask for nor did she want to be famous like this. She does not give a rip about suing or making any kind of money beyond what it takes to pay her parents back, to pay off the rest of her attorneys' fees, go to law school and she wants to set up a foundation to make sure that interviewers, parents etc. get it right from now on. I'm sure she's also like to be able to buy a house or a car or clothes again too. People would be AMAZED and terrified if they knew how often this happened. I'm sure she'd love to gather up her kids, take them home and live a nice quiet life out of the spotlight, but other people had other plans for her. Think about this very blog - would Bill Anderson have even heard of Tonya if it weren't for her begging the media to please listen and share her story? If we had not all gotten so angry in the public would she be free? Maybe-maybe not. I believe that our outrage added to Arnt and Gregor losing control, which to some degree helped the jury see what phonies they were. At this point, I don't really care to try to convince unhappy people that Tonya is innocent - some people are just negative and they want to believe the worst because I guess it is more fun. I mean really, these people are the same ones who want to believe the Enquirer too.

What does make me mad is the people who are "sick of hearing about it" or don't realize why she can't just go on with her life - could you? She has been accused of one of the most vile, disgusting things a human can do - how do you go on from that? You prove that no matter what she does - there are doubts. How do you lose your profession for which you can never return? She went to college, spent money and it is WASTED because she can never do that again. How would you feel if the THOUSANDS of dollars you spent and the YEARS of your life you spent honing a career - were wasted? Think of how people work to graduate college, how excited and proud they are - and it is for NOTHING as if she did nothing at all? How do you buy a home when your credit is ruined - clearing her name does not clear her credit? How do you go on when you are still being abused by the State who will not let you have lunch with your children without people watching to make sure you don't do anything you have been deemed not guilty of doing? How do you go on when your elderly parents have to continue to work because they gave up everything to help you? How does she know if she goes to apply for the job that YOU aren't her hiring manger who has doubts? How does she know that she won't be laughed or shamed out of anywhere if she tries? I've sat in restaurants with her and yes, the support is amazing, but I hear the whispers while people are trying to figure out if it is really her. That sucks - even if it is positive. Who wants their 15 minutes of fame for this? She was TRAUMATIZED on LKL last night as they recounted the verdict AGAIN. She didn't enjoy that. I'm sure every time she hears it, it is like a flashback for her. Sure, it was a great moment, but one she would have rather not endured I'm sure.

So yeah, she should make the movie - she deserves to buy a private island and live out her life in peace and joy, but she doesn't plan to "get rich" on it. Who cares if she does? She deserves it! Why should Sandra Lamb have her fancy Cadillac for all the lies and manipulation she's done and Tonya suffer? She plans to help others. She has been SO graceful and so poised in every interview. She's never blamed the kids, she's tried to remain so positive - would the accuser's have done that on LKL had they won? We've seen the kind of racist language and trashy gestures they are capable of haven't we? It’s odd that someone can see NO evidence and still doubt but see real video evidence and defend. How screwed up is that? What is happening to us? That is what I can't get my head around.

Any parent who has a child in the Chickamauga school system,I don't care how young or old they are,be careful with these families.If they were willing to brain wash their own children,lie on the stand & manipulate the legal system & yes again their children.What harm would they be willing to do to your children,all so they can gat what they want.Sandra,Sherri & Dewayne are at the school alot,which means are are around your children.Sandra & Sherri are always the room mother in the classes.The Wilsons try to have control in the middle school & always be around.We shall see if they have any control in high school.These people are so crazy & messed up that it is truly scary.Again if they could do this to their childern,who knows what they are capable of.

Just when you think it can't get any worse, the interview on Angie's blog with Stacy Long is just unbelievable!!! This girl is a trainwreck. I feel so sorry for any child that has had to endure her for one minute. Isn't she the one "interviewer" that actually has a liscense? If so, how come the state board has not looked into this? Surely people have filed complaints. Parents who have ever had dealings with her need to file complaints. Someone has got to stop this out of control train! What a disgrace to her profession.

3:33 I agree.I am really surprised that Mrs.Day has not said enough is enough.All of the shame & disgrace they have put on the school.You would think she would ask them to leave.I feel she has proper grounds to do so.

I just read the interview Stacy Long did with Brad Wade's son on Angie's blog and again, this woman is unbelievable. First of all, she comes across as uneducated, she can't even put together a sentence, without using UH about 20 times and her questioning is ludicrous. She puts words in the mouths of those she interviews. These are not just isolated incidents either!!

Thanks for your comments, 3:26. I think you nailed things down very, very well.

As for Long and her ilk, I only can hope that the people at the CAC get what they deserve. They have falsely accused people for years and the only thing that has happened has been the media has treated them like heroes, instead of the trashy liars that they are.

I agree that Tonya showed a lot of courage. Attorneys generally don't want their clients speaking out at all, and had she had LMJC representation, she would have been instructed to be nice, quiet, and get her life in prison sentence. Instead, she is free because she was willing to speak up for herself.

I have no idea about the contributions of this blog or Truth for Tonya, or the other people who spoke out, but I can say that all of us became a rallying point for Tonya's supporters. Furthermore, we managed to get the prosecutors off-balance, as they found that people were onto their lies -- and they were lies.

As others have stated before me, Ms. Long seems to be lacking in the intelligence department. It is no wonder the children eventually say what she wants to hear. My gosh! She cannot speak or question with any reasonable sense. She would confuse me and I am as old as dirt. What a complete "igit" she is. She intimadates, confuses, and harresses the children. I just want to reach out and "touch" her in a most unkind and ugly way. Bobb

Oh, I also read what Angie wrote on her blog about her brother. Ms. Long should have been arrested long ago for hurting children. I guess that will not happen in that area.

I read most of the comments about Tonya's interview with Larry King. It made me sad and sick that so many commented that they were going through the same thing. This is not just a problem in LMJC. It seems to be common among the entire country.

Well, it has been a busy few days in federal court. Sarah and Joal Henke have filed motions to dismiss claiming the complaint is insufficient. Laurie Evans filed an answer denying everything except her name. She also has filed a motion to dismiss claiming an affidavit wasn't attached to the complaint. Tim Deal filed a motion to dismiss claiming that he wasn't served properly. Interesting how they are suddenly interested in rules and proper procedure.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the significance of the motions to dismiss, if granted, are huge here. Normally a motion to dismiss, even if granted, would prompt a corrected pleading to revise whatever the technical defect may be. But in this case, I believe the case was filed on the eve of the statute of limitations. So if a motion to dismiss is granted, the case as to that individual goes away. TC can't just refile later because that statute has run.

I, for one, am glad that the occasional "doubter" expresses themself on this blog...Because when they do, it inspires heartfelt responses, like 3:26.... From those who KNOW Tonya and have watched, first hand, the trama she has suffered through. This has been going on for YEARS folks! How do you EVER regain that lost time with your babies. How do you EVER wash yourself clean of such filthy accusations?? YOU DON'T!! You just don't.... And that's why money is not a fix-all for what she has been through. NO AMOUNT of money!! But it sure can make the perpetrators squirm... It sure can make people think TWICE before pulling this stunt on someone else. If YOU were next in line, you just might appreciate that.

Tonya is not interested in money, fame or her 15 minutes....she had over 2 years of her 15 minutes! The lawsuit is more to pay her family back for what they spent to help defend her against charges that should have never been brought to start with. She filed on the Federal level in hopes trying to change the way children are interviewed ie: by professionals who are actually qualified, and the way these cases are handled. She was thrown into the lime light and she has a right to speak now that there is no GAG order. The accusers each had their reason's starting with Mr. Henke and his aversion to child support. Like Tonya herself has said, it wasn't a conspiracy. Tonya reported Sarah Henke for inappropriate showering with her daughter. The kids had been acting out sexually so in my opinion Joal started asking his daughter if momma had been inappropriate with her, so leading and constant were his questions she soon believed the application of medication was sexual abuse by her mother(Tonya reported Sarah so in turn Joal pointed a finger at Tonya: bonus full custody no child support.) Sandra Lamb didn't want fingers pointing at her: (You let your daughter play a sexual assault victim in a movie and see Lord knows what on the set and now she is acting sexually with other kids)couldn't jeopardize that career by looking like it was a bad influence on the child to be a star. Sherri Wilson is and was jealous of Tonya and in her words "There was a change in the friendship" Boy this was her chance. Kelli McDonald went along with her friends (I have other thoughts on the McDonald's but will not share them here.) Detective Deal is very close to these people so of course whatever he could do to ingratiate himself to them, same for Sharon Anderson. And we know why the prosecution jumped on it can you say $$$$ and talk about wanting 15 minutes but not the way they had hoped hahahahaha. Idiots!

Thank you Kathy. You took the words right out of my mouth. Especially this part:

Sandra Lamb didn't want fingers pointing at her: (You let your daughter play a sexual assault victim in a movie and see Lord knows what on the set and now she is acting sexually with other kids)couldn't jeopardize that career by looking like it was a bad influence on the child to be a star.

This has bothered me since I started reading and posting here. Did that child see and hear way too much on the set? Did someone explain her part to her using the "boyfriend/girlfriend game" as an explanation?I feel there is so much we don't know about Sandra. Did she convince her daughter that she was doing a movie during the trial? There were a lot of cameras. It would be an easy way to manipulate the child's testimony. Thoughts anyone?

I would like to point out something that is interesting in the interview with Accuser#1. Is that Accuser#1 and Accuser#3 is 2 years different in age. If everything she accused in the interview against Accuser#3 happened when she was in Kindergarten. That would have made accuser 1, 5 or 6 and accuser 3, 3 or 4 years old. Man this was one bad Pre K child if all this happened the way it was told.

Believe me, KDaw, that occurred to me, too. I never saw the video of accuser's 1 testimony but all reports had her testifying calmly and coolly while clutching a doll she named after her mama. Now, my first thought was staged. How can a child facing her supposed molester fail to react to the situation adversely? No shouting at the woman. No tears. Nothing but a calm recounting of the accusations. (This is only what I've read on various sites and in news reports. Correct me if I'm wrong, but please , no trolls). Then she pops out with the 'hand rape' accusation in court without any preparation from anyone. Oh yeah, big surprise there. I never saw the two movies this child acted in but I do remember how her mama went all out with local publicity, throwing her kids name out in a recognition pattern few adults ever achieve on the internet. So, did this child believe she was part of a movie, or even trying out for another part in a reality type movie? That answer can only come from the child and I don't think she will ever tell the truth. Who would turn on a mama who takes her to spa dates? That's a pretty heady experience at such a young age.

The interviews with Stacy Long that I have posted are just the beginning. I have so much more and can not wait to post them all!!! Everyone will see clearly just how they railroaded my brother!! Thanks so much for all the positive feedback!!!

I'm new at this so I don't know protocol. KC Sprayberry's comment about accuser #1 believed this was a part of a movie was what I thought all along. To the accuser she wasn't lying because her mother convinced her that this was part of acting.

I saw Tonya last night on LKL, and earlier on Good Morning America and Nightline. I also watched the video of her on Today. I have always been impressed on how polite she is to people. Being from Illinois, I'm not used to someone always saying yes ma'am or sir or no ma'am or sir. Larry King had to tell her to call him Larry and it seemed kind of hard for her.

Long is dirty, folks. That is the only way to describe her. She has this great sense of power that she can manipulate a child into implicating an adult, and she does it with impunity.

I only hope that the Tonya Craft lawsuit puts her in her place. In tomorrow's post, we deal more with Long's manipulations.

Angie, I read your post today and once again, we see just how dishonest Long really is. And to think that she is allowed to testify in a court of law as an "expert" witness is to bring shame on every judge and prosecutor who has employed her services.

Of course, the prosecutors and the CAC are the real villains in the LMJC, and they need to meet the bar of justice. These are people who have destroyed lives with impunity, and enjoyed every minute of it.

I hate to say it but i do not think Sandras daughter is capable of telling the truth,thanks to Sandra.On one of her big movie events the local media was at the Fort Oglethorpe movie theater along with the Lamb family.It was on tv for everyone to see.RL was front & center & even giving autographs & interviews with the media.

You have got to be kidding...right?? Please tell me you didn't really mean it. This woman has been thru two years of sheer hell...has lost everything including her career, home, reputation, life savings and most importantly has had her children stripped away from her. Not to mention what her parents have lost. I personally am amazed that she is able to still walk around due to the stress that she has lived under. So, that being said...I hope she collects EVERY DIME of her $25 million dollar lawsuit. I hope she makes millions off of potential book and movie deals. And, I don't fault her one single bit for getting on all of the talk shows that she can!! Obviously, she is an intelligent person, and I truly think she will make a difference/get some things changed. I don't for one minute think its all about the money for her. GO TONYA!!!

Angie, I read your post regarding Long - great job! 2 things - if you changed the comment log in so that people could comment anonymously as on this blog then I think you would get a lot more followers and attention to your cause. Some people don't like to register for one of the services.

If you need help typing out the transcripts and other info you would like to post, I could lend a hand at times to help you. I am a fast typist. If so, let me know how to contact you.

One of my favorite parts was from the transcripts of Long's testimony in your brothers trial. Long was trying to explain away the fact that the questions were actually from a detective observing and transmitting the questions in the interview.

Long:"We utilize the ear piece to clarify some things in case something is unclear. Sometimes there are things I need to ask more of, because I'm not a detective and I don't know what they need all the time so they'll inform me of that. The best way I can describe to you, the jury, is I act as a filter and law enforcement..."

Is no one else worried about the affect that Sandra & Sherri can have on children.This is a real life drama that takes place everyday.It is not something that happened in the past.Come August it all starts again.Is no one else scared about what could happen.

All these people may have filed a motion to have the suit dismissed, but this is federal court, not the kangaroo court in LMJC. I surely hope and pray that it absolutely will not be dismissed. The person that posted earlier is correct, she just got it in before the statue of limitations ran out. My son's charges weren't dropped until 3 years and 9 mths. later, so we can't sue anyone. In cases like, this when someone is falsely accused, there shouldn't be any statue of limitations.

Bill is right too about all the lawyers in this area, they would have told their client absolutely no media, also something I wish we had ignored, then maybe it wouldn't have been so long.

Can someone tell me who was the "other child" in the post about Tonya's daughter? I thought it was accuser #1. If so, it looks like Tonya's daughter is saying that she started it and accuser #1 is saying Tonya's daughter started it. However the demeanor of Tonya's daughter was more of being upset and accuser #1 is calm which suggests to me accuser #1 started the touching. I could be wrong.

Thanks KDaw. I was shocked when Sandra Lamb herself said "I wouldn't have let my daughter watch the movie if she had not been in it" OMG woman, OMG!!!! I'm all for helping your child achieve THEIR dreams but in this case I believe she is trying to live vicariously through her daughter. Angie your are amazing to fight this fight. Keep putting the TRUTH out there...we are with you 100%. Can your brother receive support letters? Let him know he is not alone, we are praying for him and your family.

I have had an interest in false accusations / allegations for some time and as such, in compiling case law, I have been struck by the number of accusers who are involved in acting whether professionally or in amateur productions.

Yes, I have thought from the beginning that someone didn't want their "movie star" to be labeled as dirty minded... Whoever pointed out the age difference between accuser 1 and accuser 3, brought up a good point. Tonya's daughter was pre-k when this started!

Can Tonya " sue the CAC on behalf of her daughter, for malpractice...."?

I believe she can, but doubt that, in Georgia, such a claim would survive motions to dismiss, and if it did, doubt it would survive obfuscation on whether CAC can ignore initial complaints submitted to it; whether various suspicions are "reasonable suspicion" and whether believing in "recovered memory" is a reasonable "industry standard".

If the "malpractice" alleged was "Negligence", the "alleged injury" would be disputed, as would causation.

SoL considerations include the right of her daughter to sue on her own behalf, for which the SoL may be tolled until she reaches her age of majority.

Of course, in a reasonable forum the outrageous conduct of the CAC employees would make them liable for serious damages.

The thing about negligence is that, by definition, the guilty parties did not intend the injury - if they did intend the injury the complaint would be a criminal complaint.

Of course Malpractice does include Assault - an approach worth considering....

About Me

I teach economics at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland. We are located on the Allegheny Plateau, and we have cool summers and tough winters.
I am the single father of five children, four of them adopted from overseas and I have two grandchildren. My family and I are members of Faith Presbyterian Church (PCA).